Obama’s demographic gamble

LAS VEGAS — If the 2012 election were simply about the unemployment rate, Mitt Romney would be crushing President Barack Obama in this economically ravaged state.

Yet politicians from both parties acknowledge that Obama is a solid favorite to carry Nevada on Tuesday — for reasons that illuminate not only how the president may win reelection Tuesday, but also why an Obama victory could offer a Democratic electoral template for decades to come.

Text Size

Obama's final OH push

This week in video

Obama is likely to get blown out among white voters on Election Day, narrowly lose independents nationwide and yet still win, based on historic margins among groups that often lean Democratic, but don’t necessarily vote at high rates: Latinos, African-Americans, young people and unmarried women.

Obama’s campaign message reflects its faith in demographic and social destiny: The president has campaigned hard on immigration reform and national surveys show him leading Romney by 40 points to 50 points among Latinos. Democrats have pummeled Republicans for their opposition to abortion rights and funding for Planned Parenthood, running up their support among women. On the stump, Obama touts accomplishments that appeal to a younger, socially liberal-age group, such as repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military.

As recently as 2004, it would have been viewed as damaging and perhaps lethal for a Democratic presidential candidate to make any one of those positions central to his campaign — let alone all of them.

For almost every battleground state on the map, Obama’s team can marshal data, showing they’ve registered impressive numbers of new voters and increased the weight of Latino and black voters in the electorate. Where Republicans anticipate less enthusiasm from minority voters than in the 2008 election, Obama’s team expresses total certainty that there will be more non-white voters at the polls this year than ever.

“The Romney campaign believes the electorate still looks like it did in 2004. It doesn’t. American voters are more diverse than ever,” national field director Jeremy Bird wrote in a memo this week. “More Latinos will vote this year than ever before — both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the electorate in battleground states — and the president will win the most Latino votes of any presidential candidate ever. Women continue to make up more than half of the electorate, and we’re leading among women by double digits nationally and in every battleground state, and for good reason.”

To be sure, Obama’s also delivering a conventional economic message and leaning on traditional swing-voters, too: upscale suburban independents and white, working-class Midwesterners. But Obama’s more modest backing from those groups would be unlikely to carry the day, in the absence of the overwhelming support from his distinctive 2012 coalition.

The race in Nevada is a particularly striking example of Obama’s generational bet. The state had unemployment of 11.8 percent in September, the worst in the country, and a housing market in the absolute pits. If Romney’s appeal to economic unease should resonate anywhere, one would think Nevada would be that place.

Demographically what is happening in Nevada is also happening in the rest of the country. Moreover, this election will be a wakeup call for the Republican party, for it can no longer use a subtle, and at times not so subtle, form of Nixon's "southern strategy". As Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. noted.“The demographics race, we’re losing badly, We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term." Romney made a conscious decision to run to the right on the sensitive subject of immigration using terms like "self-deport" thus he can now only count on 22% of the Latino vote. The tipping point has been reached, Republicans will have to change their theme from now on.

Latinos are a growing demographic. Not so much are young people, unmarried women, or African Americans. And Latinos are a "soft" demographic which has a loose connection with Dem values, and is culturally more attuned to Rep values (religion, work ethic, and fiscal conservatism).

If you look at the maps, Obama is winning with white voters except in the south where democrats in general, and blacks specifically have had trouble for decades. Whites in the deep south may be voting overwhelmingly for Romney, maybe 80%. But if you ignore that part of the country, I would bet whites, even white men are probably 55-45 for Obama. Take Oregon and Washington State- both overwhelmingly white, and both showing about a 10% Obama tilt.

In closer states, hispanics may tilt heavily toward Obama, but not that much more so than whites in other states. Hispanics have to be more liberal in their beliefs- they live under a cloud of suspicion, and have to vote for a more liberal and accepting alternative. Same with blacks.

I am an older white blue collar worker, raised Catholic, taught by nuns who believed in caring for their fellow human beings, and empathy for those who needed help. That is the main focus of real Catholicism, not the social issues like abortion, which is not forced upon anyone. When you have family that is poor, even if you are well off, you are going to vote for what benefits your family.

Republicans still don't realize that until hispanics and blacks move into the upper classes as a group, they are going to vote their pocketbooks, and vote for those who offer the most protection for their families. Maybe when they don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, and they don't have to worry about their relatives being deported on a whim, they will begin to see religious issues as more important than survival issues.

They aren't voting so much for Obama as they are voting democratic, and against the republicans who apparently don't have a clue about what it is like to be poor, especially when the republicans roll out measure after measure that would scare me if I was hispanic. I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near Arizona when threatened with deportation for looking hispanic.

excellent post rg although I would say that white women are more sympathetic to the Democratic party then white men. I think there was a recent study that showed 88% of whites in Mississippi voted for McCain in 2008; and that percentage, for the democratic candidate, hasn't changed for years election after election.

They aren't voting so much for Obama as they are voting democratic, and against the republicans who apparently don't have a clue about what it is like to be poor, especially when the republicans roll out measure after measure that would scare me if I was hispanic. I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near Arizona when threatened with deportation for looking hispanic.

Unfotunately, your post is peppered with cliches and talking points unfounded in reality.

First, it seems the stepping off point for many liberals such as yourself is race. You mention whites, hispanics, and blacks. If your background is true "Catholocism" where care for fellow human beings is the main principle, why the fixation on race? This racisism meme has been created by liberal progressives to scare voters into submission. Shame on you for promoting it more.

Second, you suggest Republicans don't have a clue about what it is like to be poor. What website, book, or speech brought you to such a conclusion? Do you think there are no poor Republicans?

As a "nun trained" Catholic, certainly you learned of parable of teaching a man to fish. If there was any guiding principle of the Republican Party, it would be that one. Learn how to not be poor any more. Learn what you need to do to remove, as much as possible, the prospects of ever being dependent on the generosity of others, especially the government, since they only see you as a vote, or a donor.

Finally, since you seem to imply there are no poor Republicans, why not become one, so you don't have to be poor yourself anymore?

Why can't the republicans run fiscally conservative pro- choice women in CA and the northeast ?

Califorina still has a few years of economic contraction to go before electing a Republican to any meaningful office, both State and Federal.

There are too many people living off the State and the Federal Government to ever vote in a politician who might force them to take responsibilty for their lives.

The next week will either speed up the economic ruin brought on by Progressives, or hold off the inevitable for pehaps a year. It all depends on whether voters try to take more money from the rich, while increasing sales taxes on the poor and most vulnerable.

Supporting the MEXICAN INVASION (illegal aliens) might be a temporary win for some Democratic candidates, but it will be a permanent lost for the nation as a whole. You must understand that when we have an invasion of foreign citizens, from a single nation (Mexico), entering the country and then multiplying by having 4, 5, 6 or even more children, and to top it all, these people (Mexican invadors) claim that this land belongs to them and their ancestors... just what do you think is going to happen to our country (U.S.A.) 30 years from now?

Ocean - "Who cares what their ethnicity is?"--- if only our society reflected your sentiment, but racial politics have always existed; obviously perfected during Nixon's "southern strategy" maybe in the future it will play less of a defining role.